Large Normal 92 - Game Over! Scum Win!

[Mastin]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-20

Mastin - 12

(Caboose, Devestation, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin, NanooktheWolf, zoraster, King, zwetschenwasser, ryan2754, Phoebus, AceMarksman)

OrangePenguin - 4

(cateraction, Maturin24, hewitt, Mastin, Azhrei)

Zwetschenwasser - 1

(zer0ph34r)

hewitt - 1

(RedCoyote)

NanooktheWolf - 1

(Amished)

Not Voting - 6

(Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

Seeking a replacement for over_9000.

---

Change the stats, yes. Change the result, no.

Again, I disagree. It can have a significant impact on the outcome. It can change the results a great deal.

But the chance of hitting your lyncher target is much, much higher as well.

And the chance of the mafia nk'ing Red (my lynch target) is even HIGHER THAN *THAT*.

Again, I showed you how I believe that the higher the chance of my target being night-killed, the lower my chances of getting the lynch through.

Also, as the amount of scum in the game increases, the number of possible people to be night-killed SEVERELY decreases, leaving the odds FAR higher with a greater number of scum.

This is why I have the duality listed. D1 vs. D2.

Again, I hope to prove you fundamentally wrong by showing all the math for all possible scenarios.

It's why the discussion whether to lynch you, period, is a far different question.

The discussion isn't whether to lynch me d1, or d2.
It isn't whether to lynch me, or not.

It's about WHEN to lynch me, IF at all.

I'll continue to push your lynch.

So, while I'm busily away, typing up the math, you'll continue to attack a then-helpless target?

Not helping your case.

The town does lose.

Not in my mind. I'd rather see a Jester dead than alive, wrecking havoc.

where I have two choices: one that gives me automatic 100% chance at second and one that gives me a 5% chance at first and a 95% chance at third, I'll take the latter every time.

Latter--the last option.
So, you'd rather have a 5% chance at victory, rather than a 100%?

This theory that a lyncher win doesn't make town take second place at best is self-serving hogwash.

No. It's a personal belief of mine.
I'd say the same if I were truly pro-town.

Not to defeat scum

If scum live, you lose.
So, yes, it's to defeat scum.

UNLESS you yourself are scum.

This seemed like you don't want scum dead.
Scumslip?
Sounds like one to me.

Finally, I'm not interested in EpicMafia.

It is a valid case. Comparing play to another site is valid. It helped me determine that Caleb/ppp in 742 were innocent, when Caleb claimed epicmafia experience.

THAT was the determining factor in me thinking Caleb was innocent, in addition to the guilty on Khan.

---

I have to leave, now.

[zoraster]

Latter--the last option.
So, you'd rather have a 5% chance at victory, rather than a 100%?

Not quite. I'd rather have a 5% chance at WINNING rather than a 100% chance at second place.

The discussion isn't whether to lynch me d1, or d2.
It isn't whether to lynch me, or not.

It's about WHEN to lynch me, IF at all.

I'll agree with this statement. But my point is that I find the numbers to be helpful when considering the WHEN TO LYNCH part but not particularly in the the IF AT ALL part.

Quote:
Not to defeat scum

If scum live, you lose.
So, yes, it's to defeat scum.

UNLESS you yourself are scum.

This seemed like you don't want scum dead.
Scumslip?
Sounds like one to me.

You're really stretching here. My point is that my goal is not to defeat scum. It's to win. Of course, in order to win, you have to defeat scum. But that is not the ONLY criterion of winning in this setup. The other is to avoid lynching the lyncher target.

Quote:
I'll continue to push your lynch.

So, while I'm busily away, typing up the math, you'll continue to attack a then-helpless target?

Not helping your case.

You're the one who is insisting on doing dozens upon dozens of scenarios. No one has asked for this. To me, it feels like the reason you insist on doing all of the scenarios you can think of is because (1) it can help you delay being lynched and (2) it can prove that you're working hard... perhaps garnering some sympathy support. Or, if I'm particularly cynical, perhaps so that you can win some sort of scummy award later on.

So, call yourself helpless if you like, but you've chosen this course of action.

[zwetschenwasser]

AAAHH!!! TOO MANY LONG POSTS! VC please.

[zoraster]

VC?

[Azhrei]

Kill me now, to many posts. From what I read, I am scared of mastin's mathery, and tempted to vote him just to avoid it. That said, I still I want to keep him alive until tomorrow.

[zwetschenwasser]

vote count

[Devestation]

How does he (Mastin) plan to do the maths with a closed setup?

[zoraster]

He plans to do the math on every conceivable setup, I believe.

[Azhrei]

Which is why it scares me.

[ryan2754]

Too many long posts since I last posted. I have a major headache from this game, and would honestly like to get to the next day, with Mastin gone, so I (and presumably others) wouldn't have as many headaches. You can be suspicious of that all you want, but his constant and overly long posting quoting EVERYTHING is just really getting me annoyed.
Azhrei, why keep Mastin alive?

[King]

if we do not lynch someone who is known to be anti-town (Mastin), then our chances of lynching a townie goes up significantly.

Actually, it's the opposite.
Lynch someone who's anti-town, and the chances of lynching someone who's pro-town increase.
Lynch someone who's pro-town, and the chances of lynching anti-town increase.

Take, for example, a newbie game, nine players.

A mafia is lynched day one.

That means that, of the seven alive day two, one is scum, and the other six pro-town.

A lynch of a pro-town player, however, leaves seven alive, two scum, and five pro-town.

So, yea, don't use this logic. It's flawed.

First of 2 more points I thought I had laid out clearly but now must clear up. That statement was meant to be taken in the context of a single day.

For example:

A nine player game where there are three scum and six town

Normally, the chances of lynching scum, more or less randomly, which is usually the case, one day one is 33.3% (3 out of 9).

A scum is outed day one (while not technically 'scum', this one represents Mastin). They decide not to lynch the scum they found on Day 1 (it's weird, but it's the same argument currently going on in this game) and instead try to lynch a different scum more or less randomly. They now have a 25% chance in lynching a scum on day one (2 out of 8, discounting the scum they found and, for whatever reason are not lynching).... 25%

33.3%>25%

The way you are putting it sounds like you are advocating lynching pro-towners so the chance of lynching anti-towners goes up, which you cannot possibly be advocating. What you are saying is mathematically true when taken over multiple days, but that doesn't matter because it is irrelevant to the game of mafia.

-------

Of course. That's the risk we typically MUST take. But we DON'T have to take that risk today because we have someone who definitely is NOT A TOWNIE. How was that not obvious?

Do you typically try to avoid as many risks as possible?

Yes, in mafia, as in life, you avoid UNNECESSARY risks. This is something that I thought was also obvious. I'm ust fine with taking risks if we have to, but we don't right now.

[Mastin]

I find the first only somewhat likely.

Even over a 30% chance of there being a mason recruiting me is a probability that I'd be willing to take--

That thin percentage, gambiting on the setup, is the reason I claimed. I could've easily gotten a Devestation mislynch. VERY easily. As was pointed out by several players, the claim looked like a load of BS.

I didn't.
I've put all of my cards on the table, in a desperate gamble. I put every single last chip of mine in, ("All In", in Poker terms. ) and am not gambiting on my enemy's hand strength--I'm gambiting on the chance that, in all the 30 or so cards remaining, the last one shown will win me the hand.

In less metaphorical terms,
I've put all my hopes on a role that might not even exist, and I did it willingly when better options might have been available.

But that doesn't mean they were. I do not regret claiming my true role. I've given reasonings several times as to why this is something that could be an advantage.

My unbiased thoughts,
Three semi-confirmed players (HUGE danger to the scum),
Setup-testing (vig, masons), etc.

And I stick by them, and will 'til the end.

I've been as pro-town as possible. I dare say it, but I've been more pro-town than any other player alive. My post length, and post number, and post content, make this very hard to debate with. (If I'm not the most pro-town player for all my theories, scum hunting, and DARN SOLID POINTS, then who is?)
I've been the honorary townie that I promised I would be.

All in the hopes of there being masons, capable of recruiting me.

When they might not even exist.
If there's another possible role to cure me (like a lyncher psychiatrist, a role I've never seen before and am only speculating at the existence of), then I'm gambiting that they will as well.

I've been extremely open and honest, to the point of being harmful to myself. I claimed the complete truth, including my target, Red Coyote. I've given all the possible power I hold into being as pro-town as possible.

All in the gambit that there are masons, or a lyncher psychiatrist.

Which is less than 40% chance of existing, in my mind. Yet I did it, anyway. Hoping, praying, to be correct, that the 40% was what we had.

I'm pretty sure the second is just not true.

When I'm a likely lynch d1,
A likely vig n1,
A likely lynch d2, d3, and so on...

What gives me the motivation to lie?

Confirm the fears of others that I have other motives?

Yea, that's what'd happen.

So I don't.

I tell the truth. About EVERYTHING.
I have motivation to tell the truth:

Make the town believe my intentions are pure.
I've put the evidence why Red is my target forward, AND I have several times given reasoning as to why I have NO motivation to lie about my target, and every reason to tell the truth.

However, also consider the dangers here that I've mentioned. D2 comes around and Mastin fake claims Mason. He knows he hasn't be masoned, so he suspects there aren't masons and this is his best chance to stay alive. So now he's either "cleared" himself (and you) in a fake way or masons have to come out and disown him. Now we have the masons outed.

Fake claiming mason would get me lynched.
Period.

I wouldn't do it.

I'd claim what happened.
If I wasn't masoned, so be it. I'd die.

If I was, I'd claim it.

Again, why lie if I have all the reason in the world to tell the truth?
For the wifom involved?
Yea, right.

No one knows which is why Mastin is so freaking dangerous to keep around.

Wrong.
We ALL should know.
I've given, several times, the proof of why Red is my target.
-The TWO breadcrumbs,
-Staying in my cop meta,
-Breadcrumbing cop,
-Assessing the threat level of other players, and finding only three serious threats,
-Being truthful when I could've lied before,
-Being pro-town, proving why I'm right, etc., and have shown legitimate scum hunting interest.

I've told the truth about EVERYTHING so far.

I semi-confirmed Dev instead of leading a lynch of Dev.

I told the town that I wouldn't win if I died and my target was lynched later, something not even Devestation knew about.

I've yet to tell a lie,
I've quoted good reasoning several times...

What is there left to discuss? When I've given more than enough proof that Red is my target, how can you blindly ignore this?

Thinking that I'd want my target lynched d2?

When I've clearly given reasoning as to why I'd die n1, or be lynched d2, or whoever I suggest the lynch of effectively becoming unlynchable, WHAT REASON DO I HAVE TO LIE?!?

I've given SEVERAL reasons as to why I want to tell the truth, I've given more reasonings as to why I AM telling the truth...

Anyone ignoring it is either mafia who doesn't want to accept the thought of three semi-clear players,
Or is severely tunneling town, something with will only harm their chances in winning.

Not only is it dangerous because we might lynch his real target, it's dangerous because we'll have to view every lynch possibility through the lens of "is this guy Mastin's target?"

These two are one and the same.
And viewing it through the lens of "is this guy Mastin's target" is a very good thought process, you know. It gives insight into the game to think about what I'd do.

And anyone not concluding that Red is, indeed, my target, should be kept under close guard, as I've proven time and time again how he's my target, how I've got nothing to hide, and everything to gain by telling the truth.

But if you want my best guess based on game play to this point, it's Dust.

I've labeled both Duscum and Amiscum as scum since near the beginning of the day. I only switched to OP for a few reasons:
1: OP was acting scummier,
2: OP had an ABSOLUTE ZERO chance of being the vig (he'd just accept shooting me n1 if he were), the mason (he'd recruit me), or the psychiatrist (he'd cure me).
3: OP had more votes, and is a more likely lynch.

What if OP hadn't been scummy?

I would've pushed for Duscum's lynch.

Again, this is no different than OP:

If Duscum were my lyncher target, I'd be a lousy lyncher, targeting him day one. What if people had supported me?
Seen Duscum as scummy?
What if they thought that Duscum's actions were scummy, due to my points?

I'd lose.

Any logic that applies to OP being my lyncher target (which we proved was BS) also applies to Duscum.

No, Duscum isn't my target.

Red Coyote is.

If we decide to lynch Mastin tomorrow, we've thrown away a good opportunity.

One flaw:
It's called a vig.

I wouldn't live to day two.
It's really as simple as that.

If I did, then go ahead; lynch me. I wouldn't stop you, for I admit that, even though I've told the truth, there's the chance that I get my lyncher target. (Like putting Red at L-1 and allowing me to hammer.)

Also,

Those night kills lead to some great information as well.

1: Night-kills, AND a lynch day one, provide FAR more information than lynching me day one and night-kills. You get other players' reactions to them, their reactions to others, etc.

2: We gain MORE information by leaving me to the night actions. If I die, there's a vig. If I die as a mason, even better, there's a mason recruiter.

Yet you've bashed this logic countless times as being not legit, or have ignored it.

I'm calling inconsistency, on this one.

I'll agree that lynching Mastin doesn't provide quite as much information as lynching someone else.

So, DON'T DO IT.

The town needs one thing above all else: Information.
The course of action providing the most information is almost always the correct one.

But it's a great reason to lynch him today rather than tomorrow.

So, you are basically saying BECAUSE lynching me day one gives us less information, we should do it?!?

NO pro-town player should EVER want LESS information.

------
By the way...with what I've seen as scumslips, inconsistencies/hypocrisy, ignoring many of my points "conveniently", tunneling on me, turning an eye away from my own logic, etc., Zoraster has moved from misguided townie into my scum category. I just don't see how any pro-town player could do such terrible courses of actions.

Mastin is an anti-town force.

I might be an anti-town force, but I am definitely not an anti-town player. I've been pro-town, have made good points, etc. I know it's painful for people, but a huge request:

If my lynch goes through,

CHECK THROUGH MY POSTS

.
Look at my theories.
Look at my suspects.
Look at the logic I used

.

And you'll see how right I have been over the course of the game thusfar.

In addition, look for those who were scummy, who pushed for my lynch, who reversed opinions after Zor's single post, and tunneled on me.

You'll catch at least half of the scum, I can say with almost 100% certainty.

I'm that confident.

*By the way, does anyone have a single game where Lyncher was saved by a phsyiciatrist? http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... ychiatrist is the entry for psychiatrist and it's only about SKs. It's my toughht the term Psychiatrist is just added to mason each time to make it sound like there's even a higher probability that he'll be turned town... which isn't true.

I've never seen the role...but recruiting masons are a VERY powerful force. For balance reasons, Jebus might've used an alternative converting role to make me town, and psychiatrist is the one that comes to mind.

And you can dismiss statistics all you want, but they're still an important part of the discussion.

Statistics are a supporting element of an argument.

Not the driving force.

Those who bandwagoned me off of statistics are extremely scummy, especially when it was only one scenario. (Also, keep in mind that in a setup of this size, we probably have at least seven scum and likely a serial killer--Zor's stats were for only five TOTAL, meaning four scum and a serial killer, along with the vig. Which tips the scales VERY heavily against me, as I was going to show in my math)

But the question is whether the relative statistical difference between the two is reversed given scum hunting? My thought is that the difference is actually larger given scum hunting.

Again, I'm 99 % confident that the math will favor me.

1. Mastin will likely claim Masoned tomorrow regardless of whether he actually is.

I've proven why it would be suicidal to do so. I considered it, but I concluded that to do so would NOT be beneficial to the town.

2. Dismiss statistics if you want, but do so if you have solid reasons for it.

1: Statistics support an argument, not drive it.
2: Statistics fail to account for other roles, like doctors, roleblockers, cops, and most important of all, scum hunting.
3: I've given solid reasons thusfar to dismiss statistics, if you look over my posts recently.

3. Lynching Mastin today is superior to tomorrow, in no small part because of point 1 but also for a host of reasons discussed ad naseum in this post and others before.

I've given all my reasons, besides the math, as to why this is not the case. I can have the math well within our deadline, too.

---

More later.

[Mastin]

and would honestly like to get to the next day, with Mastin gone, so I (and presumably others) wouldn't have as many headaches. You can be suspicious of that all you want, but his constant and overly long posting quoting EVERYTHING is just really getting me annoyed.

Wanting me dead because of post length is no better than policy lynching a player who posts one-liners.

In fact, it's much, much worse.

You basically are admitting to wanting to lynch the person who's contributing the most, even if the post length is annoying.

And things like that make you incredibly scummy.

First of 2 more points I thought I had laid out clearly but now must clear up. That statement was meant to be taken in the context of a single day.

For example:

A nine player game where there are three scum and six town

Normally, the chances of lynching scum, more or less randomly, which is usually the case, one day one is 33.3% (3 out of 9).

A scum is outed day one (while not technically 'scum', this one represents Mastin). They decide not to lynch the scum they found on Day 1 (it's weird, but it's the same argument currently going on in this game) and instead try to lynch a different scum more or less randomly. They now have a 25% chance in lynching a scum on day one (2 out of 8, discounting the scum they found and, for whatever reason are not lynching).... 25%

33.3%>25%

The way you are putting it sounds like you are advocating lynching pro-towners so the chance of lynching anti-towners goes up, which you cannot possibly be advocating. What you are saying is mathematically true when taken over multiple days, but that doesn't matter because it is irrelevant to the game of mafia.

The flaw in your argument is really rather simple, King:

I'm not mafia.

Hence, not lynching me INCREASES the odds to ABOVE 33%, making the chances of lynching mafia HIGHER in your given scenario.

[Mastin]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-20

Mastin - 12 (Caboose, Devestation, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin, NanooktheWolf, zoraster, King, zwetschenwasser, ryan2754, Phoebus, AceMarksman)
OrangePenguin - 4 (cateraction, Maturin24, hewitt, Mastin, Azhrei)
Zwetschenwasser - 1 (zer0ph34r)
hewitt - 1 (RedCoyote)
NanooktheWolf - 1 (Amished)

Not Voting - 6 (Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

Seeking a replacement for over_9000.

Be darn sure with your votes. L-2, and all that. Voting for me will lead to a lynch, prematurely, and will only make yourself look more scummy.

I REALLY have to leave, now; be back tomorrow.

[Empking's Alt]

I find the first only somewhat likely.

Even over a 30% chance of there being a mason recruiting me is a probability that I'd be willing to take--

Have you ever seen that role before?

[Devestation]

unvote Mastin

Orright. One chance.

[Devestation]

and yes mason recruiters exist, I've come across em before.

[zwetschenwasser]

I want to kill myself because of this game's insane wordiness.

[Caboose]

I wouldn't be surprised if Mastin was actually an SK, asking to be killed at night when he knows he's NK immune.

How do you know than an SK would have NK immunity in this game? It's not information that a townie would have. Small slip, perhaps?

IGMEO Caboose

Mastin: That Fos is OMGUS and you know it.

It's not unreasonable to assume an SK has NK immunity, especially in a large game.

[Caboose]

Kill me now, to many posts. From what I read, I am scared of mastin's mathery, and tempted to vote him just to avoid it. That said, I still I want to keep him alive until tomorrow.

Why?

[zoraster]

I've been as pro-town as possible. I dare say it, but I've been more pro-town than any other player alive. My post length, and post number, and post content, make this very hard to debate with. (If I'm not the most pro-town player for all my theories, scum hunting, and DARN SOLID POINTS, then who is?)
I've been the honorary townie that I promised I would be.

Length and post number, as I assume you'd admit, is not a sign of being pro-town at all. I assume when you were scum, your posts were both lengthy and numerous. My point isn't that you're mafia/sk now. It's that your post-count and post-number cannot be viewed as an indication of pro-townness.

I have a suspicion that THIS is why you're insistent on doing the math. Not the "99%" that you think will prove you right (as I think it will only reinforce my point). But that you'll have poured a lot of effort into the game and you're hoping people will equate effort with pro- town.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe you hope to become a town member. It's possible you hope to lead us to scum today as well. But the first is merely a hope... not something that you've already decided is something you're going to count on. The second would be self-serving (though obviously beneficial to town).

Let me clarify, though, that I have no idea whether you're trying to lynch scum or simply setting up tomorrow's hopeful lynch.

But just because you hope to be pro-town later doesn't mean you will be, and this is the type of calculation the rest of us have to make.

Quote:
However, also consider the dangers here that I've mentioned. D2 comes around and Mastin fake claims Mason. He knows he hasn't be masoned, so he suspects there aren't masons and this is his best chance to stay alive. So now he's either "cleared" himself (and you) in a fake way or masons have to come out and disown him. Now we have the masons outed.

Fake claiming mason would get me lynched.
Period.

I wouldn't do it.

I'd claim what happened.
If I wasn't masoned, so be it. I'd die.

If I was, I'd claim it.

Again, why lie if I have all the reason in the world to tell the truth?
For the wifom involved?
Yea, right.

This is outright

false

. You fake claim mason, and you increase your chances of survival and this is exactly why you'd do it. If you're not masoned, then you take a chance on whether or not there are masons.

You say you have all the reason in the world to tell the truth, but that's false too. You have all the reason in the world to keep yourself alive.

Wrong.
We ALL should know.
I've given, several times, the proof of why Red is my target.
-The TWO breadcrumbs,
-Staying in my cop meta,
-Breadcrumbing cop,
-Assessing the threat level of other players, and finding only three serious threats,
-Being truthful when I could've lied before,
-Being pro-town, proving why I'm right, etc., and have shown legitimate scum hunting interest.

More than any of your other arguments, it is this that galls me most: your assertion you have proved your target is RC. You haven't. People may buy this or not, but it's not proof whatsoever.

Claiming that we ALL should know is insulting.

[q]Dust discussion[/b]

I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion over my guess because, as I've said, I have no idea who your real target is. All I'll say is that the day had a long way to go before lynching Dust who wasn't even really the forerunner to a lynch.

By the way...with what I've seen as scumslips, inconsistencies/hypocrisy, ignoring many of my points "conveniently", tunneling on me, turning an eye away from my own logic, etc., Zoraster has moved from misguided townie into my scum category. I just don't see how any pro-town player could do such terrible courses of actions.

This type of talk, even though it is not remotely true, is fine from someone who is close to being lynched.

One flaw:
It's called a vig.

I wouldn't live to day two.
It's really as simple as that.

Are you suggesting that if there is a vigil, from town's perspective we should have him shoot you?

Statistics are a supporting element of an argument.

Not the driving force.

Those who bandwagoned me off of statistics are extremely scummy, especially when it was only one scenario. (Also, keep in mind that in a setup of this size, we probably have at least seven scum and likely a serial killer--Zor's stats were for only five TOTAL, meaning four scum and a serial killer, along with the vig. Which tips the scales VERY heavily against me, as I was going to show in my math)

Statistics are a supporting element. But what you've failed to consider is that for those on the fence, they could be the deciding element.

That said, I do have some suspicions of people who jumped on after seeing statistics. It could be laziness (this is a ton of text to read after all) or it could be scumminess or it could be that they just finally made their mind over it.

Quote:
3. Lynching Mastin today is superior to tomorrow, in no small part because of point 1 but also for a host of reasons discussed ad naseum in this post and others before.

I've given all my reasons, besides the math, as to why this is not the case. I can have the math well within our deadline, too.

The non-math reasons, as I've pointed out, are usually only assertions such as "RC is obviously my target" and "fake claiming mason would get me killed" which are flawed as discussed above.

Anyway, I'd spend more time on this post to edit, etc. but I have to run my girlfriend to the airport.

[Zer0ph34r]

Is everyone voting Mastin because his posts are too long? Even I find that to be a lame reason to vote him. I mean, the posts don't have any relevant info in them, but still.

[zoraster]

People shouldn't be voting him because his posts are long, no.

Although if you really believe his posts don't have relevant information (which i disagree with), then that's actually a fairly good reason to vote him.

To boil the arguments down as far as I can without being totally unfair to either side:

People are voting him because he's a lyncher who will serve to complicate matters tremendously in subsequent days in ways that hinder town. In addition, he can lead to a town loss directly by getting his target lynched.

His counterargument is that he'll be really pro-town, he's claimed his real lyncher target, and there's a chance he'll be masoned/cured of being a lyncher.

---
Of course, I think one of those arguments is far more compelling than the other, not the least of which is that we don't have to rely on the honesty of someone who has another motive not in line with town goals. Relying on honesty in mafia, after all, is pretty foolish.

[Empking's Alt]

and yes mason recruiters exist, I've come across em before.

Those that can change alignment?

zero: You really haven't been playing attention, have you?

[Phoebus]

i'm voting him because his posts are long.

because his arguments are all over the place.

the only thing he's left to claim now is doctor or mafia.

his claim of us finding half the scum in all the accusations he's made - makes it easy to claim that when he's accusing half of the active players

his insistence on mason recruiters
his "guess" at being a N1 vig target
this is conjecture at best.
serves as rolefish bait at best, unnecessary fluff at worst.

people who have said discussion is good, it gives information... well, after killing Mastin and after the resolution of all night actions, if you can't get information from analysing his interaction after that (from over 5 pages of content solely from Mastin) - then it strikes me that your hypothesis is unfounded.

where/when do you draw the line between discussion and distraction?
how much do you need to sift through - to get information?

do you expect to crack the game on day 2?
is this even a game?
is it some boring scientific analysis?

play it. don't flog the fun out of it.